Quote Originally Posted by comicshorse View Post
I'm only going on what I read on Wikipedia but as I read it getting 50% back is automatic no matter what. So the film only needs to make back over half the money spent on it for the investors to start making a profit.
A film that only makes 75% of the money spent on it still makes a profit of 25% rather than a loss of that amount
Not trying to badger you, but that still sounds like a bad idea. Ignoring for a moment that there is an order to who gets paid back and how much they get paid and when (meaning you could be last on the list and never see a penny), why not put your money into a movie that you think will turn an actual profit so you really come out ahead? Instead you are putting your money into a doomed enterprise that still has to hit certain thresholds for you to break even, much less actually profit. Looking at the box office for a few of his movies, I'm not sure any actually made a profit. Bloodrayne, which looks to be the biggest bomb from the 4 movies I checked, had a budget of $25 million and made less than $4 million worldwide. I can't see any way anyone who wasn't cut a check for working on the movie made money from that.

I know you didn't write the article and I am not trying to sound like I am picking on you, but there's no way that scheme makes sense. Or I should say, it doesn't make sense investing in Boll's movies, I can see where it would make sense to do it with movies that actually have positive box office results.